Should I return a Collection or a Stream?

Question

Suppose I have a method that returns a read-only view into a member list:

class Team {     private List<Player> players = new ArrayList<>();      // ...      public List<Player> getPlayers() {         return Collections.unmodifiableList(players);     } } 

Further suppose that all the client does is iterate over the list once, immediately. Maybe to put the players into a JList or something. The client does not store a reference to the list for later inspection!

Given this common scenario, should I return a stream instead?

public Stream<Player> getPlayers() {     return players.stream(); } 

Or is returning a stream non-idiomatic in Java? Were streams designed to always be "terminated" inside the same expression they were created in?

Answer 1

The answer is, as always, "it depends". It depends on how big the returned collection will be. It depends on whether the result changes over time, and how important consistency of the returned result is. And it depends very much on how the user is likely to use the answer.

First, note that you can always get a Collection from a Stream, and vice versa:

// If API returns Collection, convert with stream() getFoo().stream()...  // If API returns Stream, use collect() Collection<T> c = getFooStream().collect(toList()); 

So the question is, which is more useful to your callers.

If your result might be infinite, there's only one choice: Stream.

If your result might be very large, you probably prefer Stream, since there may not be any value in materializing it all at once, and doing so could create significant heap pressure.

If all the caller is going to do is iterate through it (search, filter, aggregate), you should prefer Stream, since Stream has these built-in already and there's no need to materialize a collection (especially if the user might not process the whole result.) This is a very common case.

Even if you know that the user will iterate it multiple times or otherwise keep it around, you still may want to return a Stream instead, for the simple fact that whatever Collection you choose to put it in (e.g., ArrayList) may not be the form they want, and then the caller has to copy it anyway. If you return a Stream, they can do collect(toCollection(factory)) and get it in exactly the form they want.

The above "prefer Stream" cases mostly derive from the fact that Stream is more flexible; you can late-bind to how you use it without incurring the costs and constraints of materializing it to a Collection.

The one case where you must return a Collection is when there are strong consistency requirements, and you have to produce a consistent snapshot of a moving target. Then, you will want put the elements into a collection that will not change.

So I would say that most of the time, Stream is the right answer — it is more flexible, it doesn't impose usually-unnecessary materialization costs, and can be easily turned into the Collection of your choice if needed. But sometimes, you may have to return a Collection (say, due to strong consistency requirements), or you may want to return Collection because you know how the user will be using it and know this is the most convenient thing for them.

If you already have a suitable Collection "lying around", and it seems likely that your users would rather interact with it as a Collection, then it is a reasonable choice (though not the only one, and more brittle) to just return what you have.

Answer 2

I have a few points to add to Brian Goetz' excellent answer.

It's quite common to return a Stream from a "getter" style method call. See the Stream usage page in the Java 8 javadoc and look for "methods... that return Stream" for the packages other than java.util.Stream. These methods are usually on classes that represent or can contain multiple values or aggregations of something. In such cases, APIs typically have returned collections or arrays of them. For all the reasons that Brian noted in his answer, it's very flexible to add Stream-returning methods here. Many of these classes have collections- or array-returning methods already, because the classes predate the Streams API. If you're designing a new API, and it makes sense to provide Stream-returning methods, it might not be necessary to add collection-returning methods as well.

Brian mentioned the cost of "materializing" the values into a collection. To amplify this point, there are actually two costs here: the cost of storing values in the collection (memory allocation and copying) and also the cost of creating the values in the first place. The latter cost can often be reduced or avoided by taking advantage of a Stream's laziness-seeking behavior. A good example of this are the APIs in java.nio.file.Files:

static Stream<String>  lines(path) static List<String>    readAllLines(path) 

Not only does readAllLines have to hold the entire file contents in memory in order to store it into the result list, it also has to read the file to the very end before it returns the list. The lines method can return almost immediately after it has performed some setup, leaving file reading and line breaking until later when it's necessary -- or not at all. This is a huge benefit, if for example, the caller is interested only in the first ten lines:

try (Stream<String> lines = Files.lines(path)) {     List<String> firstTen = lines.limit(10).collect(toList()); } 

Of course considerable memory space can be saved if the caller filters the stream to return only lines matching a pattern, etc.

An idiom that seems to be emerging is to name stream-returning methods after the plural of the name of the things that it represents or contains, without a get prefix. Also, while stream() is a reasonable name for a stream-returning method when there is only one possible set of values to be returned, sometimes there are classes that have aggregations of multiple types of values. For example, suppose you have some object that contains both attributes and elements. You might provide two stream-returning APIs:

Stream<Attribute>  attributes(); Stream<Element>    elements();